Last night, the members of the Association for Promotion of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin had the opportunity for a preliminary tour of the exhibition "In the Light of Amarna - 100 Years of Discovery of Nefertiti" at the New Museum in Berlin.

The loans from the Petrie Museum were unpacked yet, but the impression was overwhelming albeit my visit was only short. The first sensation for me: a proofe for Queen Nefertiti alive in year 16 of Akhenaten. For some details see:

Nefertiti in the year 16: another nail in the coffin of "Co-Regent Pharaoh Nefertiti" theory?...

I do not know whether this conclusion is quite acceptable. In one year, a lot can happen. Then you could still raise your queen as co-regent. Especially if you have noticed that your own health is perhaps not the best...?

Anyway, we better wait for the official publication of the quarry inscription. Perhaps the exhibition catalog contains a bit more of information. He was still there on Wednesday evening, but could not be purchased. I'm going to buy it today.

Nefertiti in the year 16: another nail in the coffin of "Co-Regent Pharaoh Nefertiti" theory?...

I do not know whether this conclusion is quite acceptable. In one year, a lot can happen. Then you could still raise your queen as co-regent. Especially if you have noticed that your own health is perhaps not the best...?

I took his comment to mean the end of 'Neferneferuaten as coregent only' theory. The 'beloved/desired...' epithets would still seem to indicate a coregent at least for a time.

If the inscriptions stand up to further scrutiny, it would seem to make the Meritaten-as-Neferneferuaten theory much less likely._________________Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.

Who assumes Tutankhamun directly suceeded Akhenaten? Surely it's as certain as anything about the Amarna tarpits can be that two ephemeral rulers; Neferneferuaten and Smenkhara - or Smenkhara and Neferneferuaten - came between? This does make it more probable that Nefertiti is Pharoah Neferneferuaten and tried to carry on after Akhenaten's death. Could she and Smenkhkara have been rival successors? One established in Akhetaten the other in Thebes? That might go a long way in explaining Smen's ad-hoc burial. Maybe he HAD to use adapted equipment because the good stuff was in Akhetaten? On the other hand Nefer doesn't seem to have used it...

Oh gosh! And I forgot the Smenkhkare stuff! And the issue on his depiction in the Meryre II's tomb.

What's the issue? There is a big gap, in the tomb of Meryre II, between the depiction of the Great Durbar in Year 12 and the sketchy scene of Smenkhkare on the adjacent wall. [And why this gap??] After this unfinished "Smenkhkare scene" there is nothing but empty wall on the opposite side of the doorway. It is assumed that the "Year 1" written over Year 17" on the winejar docket belonged to Smenkhkare--but that's not necessarily so.

Now I have the catalog. On 3 pages Athena Van der Perre reports prelimanary about the inscription (hieratic, red ocher, on a pillar in the talatat quarry). The evidence is clear, the inscription is dated on the 15th day of the third month of the flood season in the 16th year of reign of Akhenaten. Line 3 begins with the words "Great Royal Wife, His Beloved, Mistress of the Two Lands, Neferneferuaton Nefertiti".

The publication of the complete inscription about a building project at Amarna is announced.

... This does make it more probable that Nefertiti is Pharoah Neferneferuaten and tried to carry on after Akhenaten's death. Could she and Smenkhkara have been rival successors? One established in Akhetaten the other in Thebes? That might go a long way in explaining Smen's ad-hoc burial. Maybe he HAD to use adapted equipment because the good stuff was in Akhetaten? On the other hand Nefer doesn't seem to have used it...

I've long felt that the idea of rival kings explained both those things and a bit more. The royal house splits with some putting Smenkhkare on the throne as an alternative Ankhkheperure (explains the identical throne name use). Akhenaten's 'chosen' successor' dies ending that line. Even though she might technically have been the legitimate line, Neferneferuaten is denied a royal burial (all the stuff in Tut's tomb) by Tut and/or Smenkhkare.

Petrie noted that all the rings using the "old version" of the name Ankhkheperure (ie with epithet referring to Akhenaten; Nefereneferuaten) were found in the palace dumps while all the ones using the "new version" (ie without epithet; Smenkhkare) were found in the town as were a few with Ankhesenpaaten's (old) name. Doesnt mean a lot, but kind of supportive (and there were 5 of each).

I dunno about Smenkhkare. He certainly wasnt king long enough to make a bunch of stuff so, maybe things were just too hectic in the aftermath and he was forgotten.

The yr 16 inscription of Nefertiti might hurt the rival king theory. It would mean Nefertiti was on one side with Meritaten on the other. Maybe Meritaten was not a willing rebel or the split was very very one-sided.

SydneyF wrote:

There is a big gap, in the tomb of Meryre II, between the depiction of the Great Durbar in Year 12 and the sketchy scene of Smenkhkare on the adjacent wall.

Didnt Dodson recently argue the opposite of this? That the scene had to be from about year 13._________________Build a man a fire and he is warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.

There is a big gap, in the tomb of Meryre II, between the depiction of the Great Durbar in Year 12 and the sketchy scene of Smenkhkare on the adjacent wall.

Quote:

Didnt Dodson recently argue the opposite of this? That the scene had to be from about year 13.

I hope that Dodson is not still arguing for a coregency between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare! The canopic coffinettes that were pressed into service for Tutankhamun--aren't they now thought to have originally belonged to a female who was "beneficial to her husband"? Doesn't the tradition of Manetho indicate the first "Akencheres" [Ankhkheperure] was a female? That is not a primary source, but there is "Ankhetkheperure" with a Year 3 so Manetho seems to have known of a woman-king. Also, when one already has 6 daughters [or five if one died] and a woman is capable of ruling in Egypt, creating a male coregent as early as Year 12 or 13 doesn't make the most sense. Akhenaten lived until his Year 17. If Smenkhkare became a co-king and married the eldest princess, then why was there a female ruler? Did Smenkhkare die or lose his crown in the interim? The gap I was referring to was between Years 12 and 17, for which there is nothing much to show. Anyway, somebody's Year 1 did not begin until after Year 17!

Thank you, Lutz. My mistake--no Louvre! Also, I forgot to mention that I seem to have read somewhere that the name of Nefertiti is the most commonly defaced in what remained of the city of Akhetaten. So perhaps there was a throne-war, with Meritaten and her husband facing off against Nefertiti.